Randomised controlled trials on supplementation with vitamin D seem to show that the vitamin has little causal effect on our health outcomes, according to a new meta-analysis which suggests that future research is 'unlikely' to alter such conclusions.

The study, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, examined the existing evidence from 40 randomised controlled trials - concluding that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent heart attack, stroke, cancer, or bone fractures in the general population by more than 15%.

Led by Dr Mark Bolland from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, the team behind the new analysis added that as a result vitamin D supplements probably provide little, if any, health benefit - and that future randomised trials with similar designs are 'unlikely' to reveal conclusions any different to those already published.

"Findings from observational studies have shown vitamin D insufficiency to be associated with a wide variety of disorders such as fractures, ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cancer," noted Bolland and his team. "Such findings have led to calls for widespread vitamin D supplementation. However, some researchers have suggested that such recommendations should not be made without supportive trial data, and they have therefore called for randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation with non-skeletal endpoints as primary outcomes."

Bolland and his colleagues used this trial data to perform several types of meta-analysis including a 'futility analysis', which predicts the potential of future study results to sway existing evidence - the results of which indicate that the effect of vitamin D, taken with or without calcium, on heart attack, stroke, cancer, and total fracture lies below a 'futility threshold'.

"In view of our findings, there is little justification for prescribing vitamin D supplements to prevent myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, stroke or cerebrovascular disease, cancer, or fractures, or to reduce the risk of death in unselected community-dwelling individuals. Investigators and funding bodies should consider the probable futility of undertaking similar trials of vitamin D to investigate any of these endpoints," said the team.

This content is copyright protected

However, if you would like to share the information in this article, you may use the headline, summary and link below:

Randomised controlled trials on supplementation with vitamin D seem to show that the vitamin has little causal effect on our health outcomes, according to a new meta-analysis which suggests that future research is 'unlikely' to alter such conclusions.

2 comments(Comments are now closed)

science trumps prejudice

Sorry if this study stomps your belief system Telekinetic; but science trumps prejudice every time, and it is your contribution that is irresponsible. The results are challenging but they are also fascinating, and the response should not be to deny the facts but to ask why the discrepancy between associative studies and prospective ones. Are there flaws in this study, were previous associations insufficiently parsed for variables?

There is something amiss here, and it is a challenge to all interested scientists to work out what it is. Shouting and name-calling do not further the debate, and although Big Pharma is often unscrupulous you cannot dismiss every result you don't like as a conspiracy to undermine natural medicine.

Finally, the D & K combo you suggest is well known and probably relevant, along with a host of other nutritional and non-nutritional factors, in conditions where abnormal calcification is an issue (ie osteoporosis and vascular disease) - but probably not the other conditions listed here.

Report abuse

Posted by paul clayton12 February 2014 | 12h172014-02-12T12:17:49Z

Just Plain Irresponsible!

I have read numerous studies regarding the efficacy of Vitamin D and cancer prevention. This is an underhanded attack on cheap, non-pharmaceutical methods of maintaining health. Countless lives could have been saved with 5,000 i.u.'s of Vitamin D3 per day if this kind of disinformation would stop. Always supplement with Vitamin K2 as well.

Report abuse

Posted by Telekinetic11 February 2014 | 19h132014-02-11T19:13:36Z

Related products

On-Demand Supplier Webinar

12-Nov-2014 -
What’s hot in dietary supplements?
What’s the next break-out ingredient?
Can sports nutrition continue to flex its muscle?
What’s happening with online retailers?
Are there any regulatory hotspots to watch for?
Where’s the potential in foreign markets?
What next for GMOs and ‘natural’?
What’s on the horizon...

Video

10-Feb-2015 - Magnesium is needed for over 360 biochemical functions in the body, from energy production to sleep. But it has little benefit if the body cannot absorb or tolerate it. See what Albion’s scientists discovered when they bound magnesium to amino acids such as glycine,...

Technical / white paper

25-Feb-2015 - Beauty from Within is a strong growing category. It has promising future in the US especially if we educate the consumers. This White Paper presents some of the key drivers such as delivery systems but also ingredients with strong science...

Clinical study

10-Feb-2015 - Millions of health conscious consumers are looking for nutritional support to help maintain healthy cholesterol levels. With numerous studies supporting Pantesin’s effectiveness in high-risk subjects, current research shows that it is also effective for low to medium risk individuals. This...

Research study

22-Jan-2015 - Magnesium is required by over 360 biochemical functions in the body, from energy production to sleep. But, it has little benefit if the body cannot tolerate or absorb it. Learn which forms of magnesium provide the greatest absorption, stability and tolerance. Find out...